April 30, 2008

The Badger Herald tells the story with clickable pictures of the fliers that were posted at the Law School. The enlarged pictures are NSFW, but I guess if the women put them up, then it's not sexual harassment.

The Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice had planned an event called “Sex Toys 101” to promote safe alternatives to sex, educate about sexual health and pleasure, and discuss law concerning sex toys, according to the group.

Members of the organization submitted a formal complaint to Law School Dean Ken Davis Friday, requesting a formal apology, refund of event expenses and clarification of student organization event rules.

In an interview Monday, Law School Associate Dean Walter Dickey said the event was canceled for content-neutral reasons, pointing to a Student Organization Office policy that prohibits the promotion or sale of commercial products by a private company...

In their complaint sent Friday, however, the students contend even after they told Law School administrators the event did not involve any sales or promotions, Dickey indicated the event should be canceled.

“Dean Dickey’s response was that it did not matter whether it was a sale or not, there were to be ‘no sex toys on law school premises,’” the group said, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Badger Herald....

Organizers also took issue with the removal of their posters advertising the event within the halls of the Law School. The posters advertised sex toys as trivia contest prizes, included bondage references and said the event was to be “presented by A Woman’s Touch.”

“We believe they were taken down because some people found them offensive,” [said the student who chairs he Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chair.] “If some people did find them offensive, that’s one thing, but to go around ripping them down we don’t feel is the proper way to go about the situation.”

So the question is whether the event was canceled because it violated some neutral rule about selling things. As for the posters, though, surely the law school is allowed to forbid plastering images of penises on our walls.

ADDED: I'm looking at the letter the Law School dean, Kenneth B. Davis, sent to the student, which makes some important assertions of fact:

[T]he only previous formal communication from your group had proposed an event at which the vendor’s products would be sold. Your subsequent internal correspondence, which you attached to your complaint, reveals after reviewing the University’s guidelines as recommended by Dean Robarts, you proposed telling the vendor that it could feature its products (rather than sell them) and get good PR from the event. However, those guidelines prohibit not only sales, but the use of University facilities “to promote or endorse commercial products or businesses.”

Because the posters advertising the event named the vendor and pictured specific products, Dean Dickey deemed them inappropriate. He ordered that the posters, many of which had been hung in unauthorized locations, be removed. He also determined that because it was inappropriate to sell, promote, or advertise the vendor’s products on Law School premises, the event should be canceled, and Dean Robarts then undertook to notify the students to that effect.

So, note, that the official position is not that you can't post pictures of dildos — which I am calling depictions of penises — around the law school. It's that you can't post pictures of commercial products you're promoting or selling.

When the students responded that no sales had been planned, Dean Dickey determined that the event could go ahead so long as it did not involve the sale or promotion of commercial products. That important distinction may not have been communicated to all the students as unambiguously or on as timely a basis as we might have desired. For that, the Law School administration bears the responsibility.

Given that background, I will honor your request for reimbursement for the food and beverages you purchased. I cannot, however, use Law School funds to repay you for the merchandise you had intended to give away.

I've not really followed this controversy, but it seems like Dean Dickey is making his decisions with an eye on the Legislature and how they would react to this. The students in this case apparently think anything goes with no repercussions when it comes to funding.

I have to say that I get a kick out of the group name: Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice. What the heck does that mean? I'll wager that 99.44% of the members are female, though.

What images of penises? Don't you know the difference between a penis and a dildo? I know you can't tell the difference between a carrot and a penis and an onion ring and a vagina, but this is getting ridiculous.

Maybe you need to go to the library and check out a book on human anatomy.

I'm just surprised that there's a law school in America where people are getting together to talk about sex, in a context other than "I'm not getting enough". But then again, this is a talk about sex toys, so maybe my surprise is unfounded and my initial instincts confirmed.

The pretext that this was "commercial products" is what's really upsetting in this.

While Dickey may have the right to block this because it is offensive (I'm not quite willing to sign off onto that) saying that it is because of a "commercial products" rule from a non-law school organization governing office is totally bogus.

Especially, when it's application is questionable at best. Maybe if Dickey had actually read the sign before tearing it down he would have seen the word "free sex toys" on there. Commercial products relates best to SOO policies on fund raising. It's not at all clear that this is even the case.

And let's be real for a second here - anyone who saw those flyers didn't immediately think "this must be a commercial enterprise." They saw a giant dildo staring them in the face.

If Dickey is going to do something like this, at least man up and call a spade a spade. Hiding behind a SOO policy, that he's in no position to enforce, is ridiculous.

Side note:What about Charles Whitebread's presentations earlier this year? That's not a SOO production - but where was the outrage over promotion of "commercial products" on that one?

ann said...but I guess if the women put them up, then it's not sexual harassment.

I don't have much good to say about sexual harassment laws in general, but if some guy had 4 inches of personal equipment, wouldn't pictures of 10 inches of hard latex constitute a hostile work environment???

the legal problem would be in getting some smucj to admit that he had "standing" at 4 inches

Freder Frederson said..."Not to get Rene Magritte on your ass, but you didn't say a "depiction" of an penis, you said an "image" of a penis. It was an image of a dildo."

An image is a depiction. You make a sculptural form of a penis and then you photograph it: that's an image of a penis and a depiction of a penis. If I painted a penis and then photographed it, it would be an image of a penis. Sculpting or manufacturing a penis form in 3D and then photographing it is also, obviously, and image of a penis.

Think of it from another perspective. What if a men's rights group put up a poster that had pictures of these things on it and it was an invitation to a lecture about masculinity. The women would say it created a hostile environment.

This is similar to the recent Amanda Marcotte flap, where feminists just didn't see what was outrageous about images because they believed in their cause and they were using the images in support of it.

Get some perspective. You need a rule that you would apply in a viewpoint neutral way. Are you women who put up those signs ready to accept dildo-decorated signs for the lecture on masculinity?

One of the commenters following the Herald story got it about right: "Students think everything is 'a possible First Amendment violation.'"

But why didn't Dean Dickey say why he really cancelled the event? No balls? (*rimshot*) C'mon Dickey, stand up and be a Dean. That's why you get paid the big bucks, so the buck stops at you. If you set up some false pretense, the group will cure that and then you'll have to find another excuse.

sterile, well lit photos of sex toys without any humans involved them are simply not offensive. and the handcuffs with arms in them are not offensive either.

at any rate, contacting the people running the program and having them fix any posters deemed offensive, maybe with say, a reasonable amount of time to correct, seems like a better response than tearing down the posters and saying the event was canceled.

dickey (over)reacted prematurely, and is now trying to cover his tracks and call this a "misunderstanding."

also known as "dickey realizing that he went too far and is now trying to carefully back out with a shrug."

Interesting perspective, Ann. My perspective is that dildos wouldn't be used to promote a masculinity seminar; I don't think anybody would identify dildos as a symbol of masculinity. Dildos represent a liberating choice for women to me, and not much else. Some people use them and some people don't, it really shouldn't be a big deal for consenting adults to talk about it in general, much less in a closed room within a university setting. As far as the 'captive audience' who are subjected to the posters go, averting their eyes could not be easier. And especially since the posters with the dildos don't feature any human, I don't find them offensive at all - even if used to promote a men's event.

I agree the school should have a way to apply a viewpoint neutral policy to any group's sign-age. However shocking these posters are, Dean Dickey had several other options available to him than flexing his muscle and canceling the whole event.

Think of it from another perspective. What if a men's rights group put up a poster that had pictures of these things on it and it was an invitation to a lecture about masculinity. The women would say it created a hostile environment.

Well, they would be wrong. Images of "these things" (which seem to make you squeamish) are not hostile. They are not pornography. They are not nudity.

Personally, I think a guys-only lecture on the place of dildos in a relationship would be interesting. Some guys get jealous, some guys tell the girl whatever makes her happy.

Get some perspective. You need a rule that you would apply in a viewpoint neutral way. Are you women who put up those signs ready to accept dildo-decorated signs for the lecture on masculinity?

I can't speak for the women, not being one, but how about "no nudity on posters" as a rule? I'll include very realistic dildos in that rule, but not the things on this poster. I've seen cucumbers more X-rated than that.

You can't ban anything that is "phallus shaped" on posters. Get some perspective.

Extra points if they build in a water fountain, triggered by remote control, that they can trigger if feminists get too close to it with the intent of damaging it. You know, they'll go up to spraypaint it, and then it will erupt all over them.

"A Woman's Touch" is simply the name of the Sexuality Resource Center located on Willy Street in Madison. It wasn't meant in any other sense.

--WLSRJ executive board member

What a load of horse manure.

How did the SRC choose the name "A Woman's Touch" in the first place? For the same reason they want to use it on the posters. Because they want to insinuate something about women's sexuality. Not that I'm afraid of it or anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

It's like the red cross's refusal to allow the Israeli version (Magen David Adom) to use a red Star of David instead of a cross as their emblem. The Jew-hating eurotrash said "hey, it's just a Swiss flag. It has nothing to do with a cross. How did that cross get on the Swiss flag, anyway? Certainly not because the guy who designed the Swiss flag was fond of Christianity."

Have to disagree with you that the masculinity conference wouldn't use dildoes. The reason would be trying to figure out what the men yhave to do so that dildoes would not be necessary as an alternative to the real thing.

Alternatively, let's assume that there was a masculinity conference and they put up photos of stand alone lips with suction pumps attached and drawings of them in action. Would the women complain. I think they would complain even if there were no drawings, jsut the devices.

Also assume that you are a law student and a parent and you brought your kid to show where you went to school (bring the child to work program). Why should that parent have to check on whether there was flyers on the wall he did not want the child to see. I can picture it. One parent outside while the other parent checks to see if it is safe to bring the kid inside.

If a bunch of guys put a depiction of a penis on campus it is case for protests and attempts to have students disciplined. The Harvard 2003 Snow Penis (collected links from The Crimson http://www.dazereader.com/harvardsnowpenis.htm is one of the best examples of this phenomena. Officials at the University of Toronto called the creation of a snow penis part of "flagrant acts of defiance and behavior ... disparaging and demeaning of women" which resulted in students being forcibly moved during finals http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/286958

The perpetrators of these images should be severely punished, given these facts. Otherwise someone might think that there is an organized effort to push restrictions on people's speech solely based on their gender and other immutable characteristics. But that would be bigoted, and "progressive" law students could never be bigoted!

The Dean was right - this was nothing more than a sex toy party. Get someone not directly affiliated with a sex shop to give the talk and it's no big deal. The Dean and the Law School should sue the students for libel!

It was a sex toy sales pitch. One dean played the role of good cop, the other played the role of dean. It is a law school. I would think that the deans of the law school would understand procedure and act accordingly.

The students need to grow up. They tried to host a sex toy party which was cancelled because it was a thinly veiled sales pitch. The only reason it made any press at all was the pivotal role of sex toys in the issue.

I'm with Mary - this really should not have been a big deal. And, as far as kids coming into the school, consider Mary's point that we are inundated with far more explicit sexual messages on a regular basis. Furthermore many of the "other" sexual messages are more damaging than this - which was emphasized as an informational meeting...maybe Mary wouldn't attend b/c she doesn't need tips & tricks...but maybe some others do want the tips & tricks.

Personally, while not offended (actually I was amused) by the posters, i don't even know what to call some of the images, but that just made me curious, not repulsed.

Do you have to have a superpower to belong to belong to the Wisconsin Reproductive Justice League of America? You know like a super elastic clitoris like Mrs. Fantastic or black widow Spidey sense so you know which old guy to marry to inherit a boat load of money?

By the way Madison is not that liberal. Sorry to break it to those Madison residents who want to claim that fame as well as the ones that want to go off on it because of that fame.

Did you guys here about the hidden camera in Birmingham where two guys were "canoodling" in a park at lunch? They were not having any sex. Just had their arms around each other. Some resident called 911 and the police came.

I knew a couple in my hometown who got married. His name was Teddy Bumperass and her name was Della Dingledein.

Just because it goes in the vagina or anus, doesn't make it a penis or even a likeness of a penis. It's its own thing--a dildo; an inanimate (articifical?) stimulant. Why is the reference back to men and their organ?

If men didn't exist and women placed cucumber-shaped objects in their vaginas for pleasure, they wouldn't be considered images of penises.

You're imputing intent without any context other than what your brain is supplying.

It's like saying a mechanical hook at the end of someone's arm is an image of a hand.

(The only one that is shaped like the male anatomy in a remotely accurate way is the upper left one, which is, IIRC, a "Feeldoe". A Feeldoe is an unlikely item to be depicted on a poster for a conference on masculinity, given that it was specifically designed by a lesbian to stimulate the clitoris and g-spot of a woman using it to penetrate her partner.)

An exploration of the unchanging idea of penisness in the context of mutable physical objects, both anatomical penises and dildos, with special attention to the layers of meaning and contradictions inherent in the strapon.

A selection of topics to be covered will include:

1. The properties that may be considered as referents of the general terms of penisness or penishood.

2. The ways in which penishood inheres in a particular penis or penis-like object.

3. An ontological framework of penisness as derived from the meanings understood from the perspective of each of the several orifices proper to the inserted penis.

Each student will be expected to complete a research paper focusing on the relationship of two or more instances or particulars and their relationship to a chosen aspect of the universal of penisness, e.g., skin vs. silicone, that is whether an extensible skin-like exterior is necessary, or whether the properties of softness and slipperyness inherent in silicone are sufficient.

There will be an optional end-of-term sex toy party, to which students are encouraged to bring examples from their research.

"If men didn't exist and women placed cucumber-shaped objects in their vaginas for pleasure, they wouldn't be considered images of penises."

*snerk*

If men didn't exist (or at least, if penises didn't exist) women would not place cucumber-shaped objects in their vaginas for pleasure. The ONLY reason that women place anything for pleasure in their vaginas is because that is where nature intends penises to go.

If not for men, we wouldn't bother because there would be no reason to bother.

Also, if some other sperm delivery system... oh say, if human penises looked like duck penises... were involved a woman would not put anything cucumber shaped in her vagina for pleasure. She'd put corkscrew shaped things in there for pleasure.

In a world with human duck penises Al Qaida would not forbid the public consumption of bananas or cucumbers by women, Al Qaida would forbid the public consumption of pasta, particularly Rotini.